Skip to main content

I published the first diary/poll on Drone attacks here on September 30, 2011 after the vaporization of U.S. citizen, Islamic cleric and al Qaeda recruiter, Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen on the same day.
The results of that poll are here: This Terrorist was an American Citizen
The question was: Do you believe we should use Airstrikes to Assassinate suspected Terrorists?
The results were 40% yes, 26% no. This was just as Occupy Wall Street was taking hold and the reverberations into casual lefty assumptions was still lagging on sites like this.

The second poll I did was in September of 2012 here: Poll:Drone Attacks PC Here
The results on the same question: 54% yes, 28% no. Which goes to show that the site had become even more reactionary in view of the coming national election. That's understandable but odd when you think about how little Occupy Wall Street had on a site such as dkos.

But since those heady days the Drone Wars have gone viral. Other sites, other voices have given the issue the urgency along with the twist of irony it richly deserved all along. The ability of our more"edgy" ( as G.Greenwald would put it ) blogs and communities to inoculate themselves from the glaring disconnect from political realities in the wake of growing protests and the critical mass taking place across our political landscape. Some would say that disconnect allowed certain poseurs on the right an opportunity to co-opt the issue. Shame on us.

So it is time once again to gauge if any of this has any effect in partisanville. Is the community here still despairingly unaffected by the implications of such crass, secretive and unconstitutional power mongering by the current administration or has it finally woken up to what the rest of the country now feels is a dangerous confirmation that our constitution is now a quaint historical inconvenience to the Executive branch.

The question is not just reserved for Drone attacks here or against American citizens. It's a general question about airstrikes of any sort and assassination of suspected terrorists. There are of course larger issues at stake than just the one that held up the Brennen confirmation and Rand Paul's concerns. It's always been all encompassing as this poll has framed it just so the general opinion can express itself and not just the constitutional one. And I left out all other options this time around to make it harder for some to equivocate less than honest stakes now that enough time has passed to form a educated opinion.

Don't be afraid to vote your opinion now. The election is past and our guy won.

Poll

Do you believe we should use Airstrikes to assassinate suspected Terrorists?

55%102 votes
44%82 votes

| 184 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 02:48:37 PM PDT

  •  Your title: (0+ / 0-)
    Poll: How do we feel now about Drone Assassination?
    then this in the body:
    The question is not just reserved for Drone attacks here or against American citizens. It's a general question about airstrikes of any sort and assassination of suspected terrorists.
    supported by your poll wording.

    Which is it?

    •  It consistent and clear. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      In general how do you feel about Drone assassination. Even if we used aircraft other than drones, the issue would be the same.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:04:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it clear? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aeolos, truong son traveler

        The key word here is "SUSPECTED." Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I find it hard to believe that 60 plus percent of the people who voted yes in your poll accurately reflect the views of consensus here at this site. At least I hope to God they don't. Because that would mean that 61% of the people here don't give a fuck if innocent people are assassinated by the US government.

        Is that possible? Is it really possible that so many people, on a progressively oriented website, don't understand the danger of letting any government just say "we suspect" this person so we're going to kill him. Or don't care?

        Is it possible that people have gotten so stupid that they no longer understand the importance of due process, the right to a trial, innocent until PROVEN guilty, not only for protecting an innocent person against the grave injustice of being punished, much less put to death, for a crime that person did not commit, but also in protecting all people against the tyranny of excessive and unchecked government power?

        Or did too many just miss the "suspected" part of your polling question?

        Or maybe a bunch of right wing idiots have freeped this poll. I fucking hope so. Because if the 69 people who voted yes to that poll question reflects even a plurality of people here's views, then this country, and this community, are in a lot more trouble than I thought.

        •  You are parsing to the point of (0+ / 0-)

          Sounding ridiculous if you cannot understand what "suspected terrorist" means. I cannot help you there. Read the memos and the justifications of the policy online.

          Unfortunately all we are promising is the truth if you take the red pill and look up there at the poll.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:03:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So in your world of memos and justifications, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            truong son traveler

            "suspected" no longer means suspected? And you think I need help?

            Googling the word "suspected" didn't even require going to a dictionary. Google provided two definitions, which are both accurate:

            suspected

            past participle, past tense of sus·pect (Verb)
            Verb

                Have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.
                Believe or feel that (someone) is guilty of an illegal, dishonest, or unpleasant act, without certain proof.

            You can Google the word too, or, to make it super easy, I both linked to the Google result and blockquoted the text of that result.

            I also have an old Webster's dictionary here and it too fails to mention any memos or justifications.

            It too just says, "without certain proof."

            Now, you want to put forth the notion that "suspected" has a new meaning? Go for it. Explain to everyone your new meaning of the word suspected.

            But I must warn you in advance, it will be pure bullshit. Suspected still means to think something without proof. A theory. An impression. But no certainty.

            "Suspected terrirists" may sound real scary to you. But in reality, and especially under the law, it has a specific and very important meaning. And that meaning is miles away from "beyond reasonable doubt."

            •  Legal. Think legal definition. (0+ / 0-)

              That's your only hint. The issue is all about the legality of the assassinations and due process which follows straight into what "suspected" means to a lawyer.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:02:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  One problem is that (0+ / 0-)

          this is a situation that is outside the realm of criminal law, and in the realm of war. Whether that is justified or not is debatable, but that's how it's being handled.

          Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:28:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It has everything to do with (0+ / 0-)

            Constitutional law and Presidential powers. Especially as applied to Anwar Awlaki as an American citizen. The Fifth amendment and due process as per criminal law.

            Under what authority akin to Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War are we currently under? The AUMF? If that's the case all Constitutional lawyers and former professors including Obama should shut the fuck up about ANY of our rights under the Constitution till the GWOT is over sometime next century.

            (And God help us when Jeb takes over)

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:15:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  His citizenship has no bearing on the matter (0+ / 0-)

              as far I can tell. The Fifth Amendment and due process don't only apply to American citizens.

              Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

              by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:53:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually it does per the president's authority (0+ / 0-)

                Under the constitution to deprive him of "life, liberty, and the pursuit..." That was put in there to prevent the making of new kings.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:01:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What does that have to do with (0+ / 0-)

                  citizenship?

                  Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                  by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:06:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Americans are protected outside our jurisdiction (0+ / 0-)

                    Under U.S. law. Meaning we have the same rights with respect to American authorities that we'd have if we never left our soil. Foreigners do not necessarily have the same guarantees with respect to American action.

                    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                    by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:11:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is not something I was (0+ / 0-)

                      aware of. My understanding was that rights such as the Fifth Amendment apply to all those under US jurisdiction, not just citizens, whereas you are saying they apply to US citizens, regardless of jurisdiction.

                      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                      by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:17:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are right if these foreigners are on U.S. soil (0+ / 0-)

                        They have these rights. That's why they created Guantanamo to store "enemy combatants" in a quasi-legal limbo with respect to our courts. Outside our soil they are not afforded those protections since the U.S. does not have jurisdiction.

                        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                        by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:22:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Can you tell me which law gives US citizens (0+ / 0-)

                          the protection outside US jurisdiction? Since the US doesn't have law enforcement authority outside its jurisdiction, I'm not sure how that is supposed to work.

                          Now of course, since the US doesn't have law enforcement authority, that supports the claim that extrajudicial killing in foreign countries is illegal. The question comes down to whether the killing is part of the actions authorized by the 2001 AUMF. I think there's a reasonable argument that they aren't, but I also think the AUMF is too vague and broad, and should be repealed. If there is still a valid case to be made for continuing actions, a new AUMF can be written.

                          Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                          by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:30:48 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  With respect to U.S. authority and law. (0+ / 0-)

                            Follow?
                            We have protections FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT and the legal rights to due process if accused or suspected by our government. On our soil and off.

                            Foreigners are protected through treaty from our Government. But don't get that extra layer of protection from the U. S. constitution. It seems an almost exotic point, I agree but can come in handy in such situations facing the world's most formidable power in Drone attacks.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:37:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which then of course segues into domestic use (0+ / 0-)

                            Of Drone Assassination and the legal theory that Holder attempts to evade and stall pronouncements on.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:42:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think the domestic use case (0+ / 0-)

                            would be a clearer violation of the law. Holder has now said that it wouldn't be legal, so I'm not sure why that is still an issue.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 01:18:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  His response was mendacious (0+ / 0-)

                            In his generic example of a hypothetical. Basically saying that OUTSIDE of the reasons for using Drone Assassination in the GWOT, it would be illegal. Of course it would. But by then the opportunity would be well established through the current expansion of Drones in the GWOT.

                            Kinda like when they said "oops" when they assassinated Awlaki's 16 year old kid, also a U.S. Citizen. It was illegal.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 10:09:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I think I follow what you're saying, (0+ / 0-)

                            but I'm not sure it's correct. If the law restricts how the government treats a US citizen on foreign soil, then there must be a law specifying that. It's not implicit, because the laws are not restricted to US citizens within US jurisdiction. If we're talking about the Bill of Rights, those are generally restrictions on the government, and say nothing about the citizenship of who is protected. So if the restrictions apply for a US citizen, then they apply for a non-citizen. Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise. At least that's my take.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 01:16:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. Citizenship affords you certain "perks" (0+ / 0-)

                            under the law.
                            One of which is due process, habeas corpus, right to a speedy trial, etc. WITH RESPECT TO U.S. LAWS AND AUTHORITIES.

                            You take those with you when you travel. Foreigners take with them their countries specific protections under their constitutions WITH RESPECT TO THEIR GOV'TS AND AUTHORITIES.

                            You have the right not to be assassinated by a U.S. president being a U.S. citizen primarily through the prohibitions of the U.S. Constitution. That simple. Foreigner have the right not to be harrassed and assassinated by overhead Drones per international conventions and treaty law covering basic human rights - even if their countries authorities are colluding with the U.S. military.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:05:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  One thing nice about drones (7+ / 0-)

    is that just having them may have a deterrent effect. All the bad guys in the world know that we may be able to kill them no matter where they are, with little or no warning. Even if you don't like the idea of us actually using drones, you have to love the fact that people fear that we'll use them.

    •  Interesting. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, radmul

      An interesting take on fear, deterrence, and the justification for their use.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:06:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, you do have to actually (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sebastianguy99, Aeolos

        use them once in a while or the fear will subside...

        •  And once your enemies get them (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, skrekk, truong son traveler

          the fear spreads nicely!

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:14:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  True but technology moves forward (5+ / 0-)

            no matter what we say. Everyone will have drones, and there will be anti-drone systems, and then systems designed to foil anti-drone systems, and so on. We just have to maintain the lead, that's all.

            •  I smell Jobs, jobs, jobs. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2, corvo

              Dovetails nicely other economic justifications of certain constituencies.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:22:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are also jobs created in the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aeolos

                target countries. After drone attacks there are buildings to rebuild, etc. People tend to focus on the negatives but there are positives as well.

                •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Aeolos

                  May be it would be a good stimulant for our economy also. Let's randomly drone a few buildings in America every week.

                  It would help with the next job numbers.

                •  "After drone attacks (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  truong son traveler

                  there are buildings to rebuild"??? This is presented as a "positive" which does not get enough focus...?

                  The concern is less with the things which can be rebuilt and more with the things that can't.

                  Regarding the general suggestion that there are silver linings: with the exception of complete global destruction, there tend to be opportunities after any calamity. One would imagine a Yemeni neighbor picking through the rubble of the home built by his grandfather would have preferred instead the opportunity to build at his own pace without the positive intervention of a bomb?

          •  Drones are easy to shoot down, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens, doc2

            if you have the right weapons. A Stinger missile would blow a drone up quite nicely. Stingers are man portable and fairly easy to use. You also need a radar system to track the drones at altitude.

            Our drone campaign has been effective because Al Queda doesn't have these radar and missile capabilities.

            Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

            by OIL GUY on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:16:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wait until actual states (0+ / 0-)

              start aiming drones at us, or start arming non-state actors with them.

              Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

              by corvo on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:54:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Never going to happen. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sky Net

                I'm sure many states will develop drones, but its totally impractical to use them against the US mainland. They are not designed for transoceanic flight. We are more than capable of detecting them and shooting them down. They are small aircraft, but no smaller than many personal aircraft which are tracked all across the US territory.

                As I said, they only work for us because we are fighting an enemy with no radar or air cover.

                Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

                by OIL GUY on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:24:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "They are not designed for transoceanic flight" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Aeolos

                  yet.

                  And let's keep believing we're the only country capable of leg-up technological advancement, shall we?

                  Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                  by corvo on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 06:19:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I'm beginning to have a problem with it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aeolos, corvo, Bisbonian, wayoutinthestix

    The whole theory of drone strikes on American citizens on American soil is troubling. Especially since the legal reasoning is being kept secret. I understand keeping some things secret but laws? We are a nation of laws. If we keep laws secret, it weakens the entire system. For instance, ignorance of the law becomes a viable excuse.

    When a Republican President in the future has this power, I don't want someone to ask, "Well, if you have such a problem with this Republican President's powers, why were you OK with it when Obama did it?"


    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:02:50 PM PDT

    •  The thing about that is that it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      is a theoretical construct (and one introduced into the national conscious by Tea Party Republicans). It is a worthwhile theoretical debate that I am happy to delay having until the day comes when it actually happens (which may be never). Why debate what may never happen? If our government ever actually orders a drone strike against a citizen on US soil, we'll be able to discuss it intelligently at that point, with some real facts at our disposal.

      •  Correction. It is a constitutional theoretical (0+ / 0-)

        construct. The worst kind of conundrum better left to the Yoos and the Holders. (snark. Do we even still use this qualification anymore here?)

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:31:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because As Daniel Ellsberg Pointed Out, Huge Anti (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aeolos, Eyesbright, wayoutinthestix

        Vietnam war protests caused Nixon to cease operations that were in progress to prepare nuke strikes against North Vietnam.

        A lot of people suspected he might make such a move --it was an idea in public domain since Goldwater-- but I'm not sure anyone in the general public had good reason to think it was pending at that time.

        Even more than then, ours is a bad time in history to believe the best about our military machine and several other important elements of government.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:46:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's hard to name a power (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, bobinson, skrekk, radmul

      That I would want a Democratic president to be able to use which does not have the potential for mayhem in the hands of a Republican president.

    •  Why is it more troubling on American citizens (3+ / 0-)

      on American soil?  Foreigners on foreign soil are no less human.

  •  Suspected or known (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, 6412093, Eyesbright

    There was nothing suspected about Anwar al-Awlaki.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

  •  Is this supposed to be a loaded question? (0+ / 0-)

    I didnt' see the other diaries, so this is new to me. What I'm sensing is a loaded question. Anyone else?

  •  Osama was an assassinated "suspected terrorist" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, Gooserock

    And I feel wonderful!

    The same people who are so concerned about drones will be the first people calling for President Obama's resignation after someone they know is killed by a "suspected terrorist" who could have been assassinated but wasn't out of concern over drone use.

    It isn't enough to just be concerned about drone use. The discussion must encompass foreign policy, military policy and threat assessment.

    I don't care if they're killed by drone, sniper, or some other method. As for killing citizens, the government has been doing that since we were a collection of colonies. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about citizens killed in the nation's death chambers-with the blessing of "due process"- than I am about hypothetical citizens killed willy-nilly by drones on any soil due to their opposition to the powers that be.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:34:03 PM PDT

    •  The operative phrase there is (0+ / 0-)

      "powers that be"
      No argument from me because that's the way it is.

      I would like at some point to believe in something though. Bigger than the powers that be.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:38:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Special Ops. Casualties Limited to Genuine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aeolos, radmul

      targets. Drone and air strikes have a record of killing more innocents than targets.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:47:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So do bullets, what's the point? (0+ / 0-)

        Concern about methods(drones, air strikes) without any discussion of threat assessment and policy is not likely to lead anywhere. In fact, this is just filler that will be all but forgotten as soon as the next attack by "suspected terrorists."

        "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

        by sebastianguy99 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:24:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radmul

        More than conventional bombings? I doubt it. Remember the fire bombings of Tokyo? Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

  •  To clarify (6+ / 0-)

    I prefer drone murder over committments of tens of thousands of troops into places with rough terrain and hostile populations.

    I also prefer drones to carpet bombing from 30,000 feet from B-52s.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:40:26 PM PDT

    •  In keeping with that perspective (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      you could justify most anything. It's simply relative to your other tools of the trade, applied arbitrarily and justified preemptively.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:44:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        in my lifetime I've seen both the bombers and the troops options exercised vigoriously, causing additional tens of thousands of deaths.  

        I'd prefer to never see either option exercised again.  But as long as people who think the 9/11 attack was a glorious victory, are running training camps for Act  II in some foresaken mountainous terrain, our political and military leaders are going after them.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 06:00:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  More Options: Special Ops. (0+ / 0-)

      Like the killing of Bin Laden. We don't jeopardize either thousands of troops or hundreds of nearby innocents as drone and air strikes do.

      These are terrorists; by definition the numbers are infinitesimal.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:49:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, can't agree (0+ / 0-)

        The Seal Team Six members who undertook the Bin Laden raid risked their lives to do it. It made sense in the context of Bin Laden, such a high value target, and it was important to have evidence that we got him. But for other targets? No.

        Those team members all are human beings with loved ones. If there is a way to get the bad guys without risking the lives of our people, I think we should do it.

  •  I notice (4+ / 0-)

    there is no choice for "it depends". Almost every choice I've seen lately is a black/white question, a question that uses false equivalency, or one that uses straw men.
    We shouldn't authorise blanket assassination via drone anywhere, domestically or abroad without strict guidelines that can stand presentation in a court of law. However, saying that drone assassination is O.K because of other human rights violations have and are being perpetrated, is just plain stupid. Saying that it cannot be used under any circumstances, because it's creepier than using a man or a fighter plane with a bomb to do the same thing is likewise stupid.
    What is at stake here is transparency and definition of set rules, not methodology.

    "We are monkeys with money and guns". Tom Waits

    by northsylvania on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:45:10 PM PDT

    •  No straw men. (0+ / 0-)

      Do you or don't you support drone assassination.

      As I noted in the diary, this time around I did not include any qualified choices. The debate is long enough in the tooth now to stake a clear opinion.

      An up or down vote on the floor.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:47:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? Intent, and other options, don't matter? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, TRPChicago

        That's not a very mature way of dealing with any situation. But, if your question then becomes, do I support drone assassination if it is the only way to stop someone who is currently attacking my family, then the answer is yes, I do. Those of us who can see that there are gray areas won't be willing to say that they should never be used.

        "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

        by tb92 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:33:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Since when has precision and clarity of analysis (3+ / 0-)

        been a "straw man?"

        •  "Precisely" what isn't clear about the question? (0+ / 0-)

          Do you or don't you support Drone assassinations? The answer is not contingent upon circumstances.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 08:24:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, it is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            northsylvania

            I would have supported the drone assassination of Osama Bin Laden, but not the drone assassination of Mother Theresa.

            •  Then logically you are supportive of (0+ / 0-)

              Drone assassinations in general. With a general rule of application:

              On one end of the spectrum is the clear terrorist mastermind of 9/11 etc. and on the other a Roman Catholic Saint. A nice wide spectrum with all others falling in that "grey" area in between basically covering 99.9999999% of the rest of humanity.

              That is the problem since the process of profiling is opaque, and the decision to target is not uniform nor is it under a rule of law. It's a purely subjective interpretation of what constitutes a threat based on ones political views and sense of proportion.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:19:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Up or down. Either/or. Are you For Me or Against? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        The words "drone" and "assassination" are loaded. The question "Do you or don't you support drone assassination" isn't clear or simple. It's in the mode of Congress's question-style bullying: no room for discussion.

        We aren't having reasonable discussions about either word, and certainly not together. As wise men counsel, "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 08:44:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A wise man may counsel: (0+ / 0-)

          "Don't confuse oneself".

          Sometimes the word "Drone" means just that. Or would you prefer UAV (unmanned arial vehicle). Too loaded? Well they do come with Hellfire missiles.

          "Assassination"? How does "extrajudicial killings" grab you?

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:23:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Christopher Dorner was an "extrajudicial ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... killing." No declaration of war, no Due Process, no apparent involvement of the judiciary at all. (For that matter, "drones" come in all sizes and "assassinate" means murder under a range of circumstances.)

            "Extrajudicial killings" should be as few as possible, I grant you. (Combat engagement in declared wars would seem not to be the ideal situation to test the concept of Due Process, although wars should be as few as possible, too.) Are you going to command law enforcement - or the President - not to ever, ever engage in "extrajudicial killings" under any circumstance because it "means just that?" What does it mean, to you?

            You had some thoughtful responses to the text of your diary, many of which you handled without much engagement. Such as one to me: "You've gone off a tangent on American soil Drone Assassination. The question is not that." (That was the pivotal question in Sen. Paul's rambling diatribe on the Senate floor. Two questions, actually, and much of the coverage rested on the issue of citizenship in that context.)

            Yes, I agree, the titles of your diaries and your poll question are phrased broader than our borders and broader than US citizens. I think the answer might vary if you're talking about someone who happens to be a US citizen amidst a group of the Taliban firing on US troops in Pakistan  - or a heavily armed US citizen hunkered down in a bunker in California after killing a lot of cops and others. If the answer doesn't vary, at least the discussion would be wiser.

            Essentially, the question you think is neat and precise isn't, and answers won't be sensible, either, without some discussion. That's also the problem with Sen. Paul's filibuster and many of the opinionaters who want to make a point without "having a conversation."

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 06:28:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's already been discussed how domestic (0+ / 0-)

              law enforcement affords an officer the right ( even the demand) to shoot down an imminent threat to public safety. Those are not assassinations. If an officer was involved in assassinating a U.S. citizen he'd be tried for murder under the law. It's that simple.

              It's an invalid example with absolutely nothing to say in these questions of assassination by drone or any other method. Once again you are going out of your way to confuse the issue for yourself.

              By the way, Rand Paul went out of his way to discuss the Awlaki assassination and his 16 yr. old kid, also an American Citizen. He pointed out that the authorities response to the second killing, his kid, was that the kid shouldn't have had the father he did. That cold. These assassinations took place OFF OF U.S. SOIL. That was not just a discussion on Drones in the good 'ol U.S. of A.

              So the questions are too complicated, the discussion is rife with interpretations and prevarications and qualified responses too be handle by mere citizens. Bullshit.

              The question above is clear, concise and pointed. Do you or don't you support Assassination of suspected terrorists. Any other way to weasel out of answering yea or nea is a mendacious exercise of cynicism.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:38:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Since you use the word "assassinate" (0+ / 0-)

    I'm inclined to say no. Not sure if I think that's the correct word that describes what has been done.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:53:55 PM PDT

    •  Sorry if I'm being rather loose in my (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Flying Goat, truong son traveler

      application of the term.

      In my day it used to mean to kill someone extrajudicially for political, geopolitical reasons.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:59:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with your definition, (0+ / 0-)

        but as I said, I'm not sure that accurately describes the situation.

        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:02:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would "extrajudicial killings" as a filter (0+ / 0-)

          soften the impact for you.

          Kinda like "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" do for "torture"?

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:24:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure what you're asking, but (0+ / 0-)

            my disagreement is that I'm not sure that the reasons for these killings are political, or at least not entirely political.

            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:46:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not political then how would you describe (0+ / 0-)

              them? "Enemy combatant" is an Orwellian term born of political considerations outside the regular war conventions. You know that quaint stuff called the Geneva conventions.

              If these are not political then what are they?

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 08:34:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, since the people being targeted are (0+ / 0-)

                suspected of involvement in terrorist activities, I would say they are at least perceived to be a threat, and that's why they are targeted.

                Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 08:54:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And if the rule of law comes down to (0+ / 0-)

                  Perceptions well then, that can have a multitude of consequences. People perceive events, causes and threats differently depending upon the subject. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:29:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm only referring to the motivation, (0+ / 0-)

                    which is related to the events of 9/11/01. I'm saying this is why I don't think the motivation is primarily political.

                    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:44:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Revenge over 9/11 is quite political. (0+ / 0-)

                      The whole reason we went over to Afghanistan was to get the motherfucker who planned 9/11.
                      War is a kind of geopolitics gone mad.

                      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:51:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I suppose you could say that about (0+ / 0-)

                        law enforcement as well.

                        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:55:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually no since there is a rule of law (0+ / 0-)

                          Engaged with "law" enforcement.

                          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                          by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:01:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  But still, I was talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            motivations. I think revenge is an element in both cases, but there is also the desire to protect people from further violence.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:07:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Motivations is akin to perceptions (0+ / 0-)

                            Very subjective and unworthy as a basis of legal justification.
                            Revenge can be understandable and yet quite outside of legal parameters. The ongoing GWOT is now quite different in tone and motives than 12 years back. If we still believe that we have the right to strike back at our attackers of 9/11 regardless of the current global context, regardless of our own Constitution, regardless of the consequences and the counterproductive nature of raining death over civilian and sovereign airspace then we haven't learned a thing since the early years of the Bush/Cheney regime.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:45:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, if you're talking about legal issues, (0+ / 0-)

                            motive and the state of mind of an attacker is a factor in determining the nature of a crime. For example, if a person kills another, determining whether it is murder or self defense, and what category of murder it is, if it is murder, are in part determined by examining those subjective factors.

                            I took issue with your use of the term "assassination", because that assumes certain things about these attacks that I don't take as givens. If I agree that they are assassinations, I cannot believe they are justified, because I don't believe that assassination is justifiable. That doesn't mean that I think they are justified, but I think the question is not as plain and unbiased as you make it out to be.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:05:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, yes you can draw up a profile of what (0+ / 0-)

                            Makes a terrorist. Using their motives as you perceive them, you can then make a credible case that they have the potential to be a threat. But then you have to necessarily go further to justify that the threat has become imminent enough to use extralegal methods, extrajudicial killings is the term currently in vogue, violate your own checks to abuse of such power, violate sovereign territorial protections of international law, and finally violate the targets human rights of due process.

                            Now what imminent threat has these nearly 4,000 killings,  some of them innocent civilians, posed on our soil? Who decides in secret apart from any oversight, when to assassinate? Is this legal? Under what constitutional construct?

                            "Assassination" assumes nothing.  That's what it is in plain English. Ugly as the word is, there you have the policy in all its inglorious implications. Most of everyone who objects to the term is making the dishonest leaps of assumption that you can sanitize the policy using clever Orwellian substitutes.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:43:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We're going in circles here. (0+ / 0-)

                            I still maintain my original objection to the use of the term "assassination", and it isn't about aesthetics.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:11:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because you don't have a clear notion (0+ / 0-)

                            Of what the word means or you just think it's an unpleasant term in civilized conversation.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:17:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I said, it's not about aesthetics, (0+ / 0-)

                            and my objections explicitly dealt with the meaning of the word, where I conceded to your definition.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:19:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I can only conclude by pointing out that (0+ / 0-)

                            you are uncomfortable with the application of the word, not so much because of circumstances but because you are uncomfortable with the implications of the word ( not the aesthetics) as anathema to our Constitutional way of life.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:50:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it's a combination of both, really. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's true that I'm uncomfortable with the implications, but I also think it may not be applicable.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 01:57:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Assassination is assassination. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just because an American president does it doesn't make it right. Or inconceivable that we should call extrajudicial killings ordered by our top law enforcement officer, assassination.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 11:03:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I understand your point. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think it's right, I'm just not sure it's assassination. You obviously disagree.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:17:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, then, when are you going to do a poll (0+ / 0-)

            on whether we approve of the missions that the regular army is going out on every day and night in Afghanistan? People get killed regularly on those missions, too.

            •  Afghanistan is an ongoing extension of the (0+ / 0-)

              AUMF and technically under the authority of a Coalition of NATO command.

              Focus people. You're confusing the issue unnecessarily.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 08:38:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Afghanistan is not an extension of the AUMF. (0+ / 0-)

                It's the original place that operations authorized by the AUMF took place, and the AUMF said nothing about NATO.

                Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:54:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's continued justification is an ongoing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  truong son traveler

                  Extension of the original AUMF. We finally smoked the bad guy, remember? All operations ongoing in the GWOT including the Drone Wars are being justified through the Justice Department with the AUMF.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:59:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's true, but (0+ / 0-)

                    the AUMF was too vague and open-ended. Although, even if it had not been, there's no guarantee we wouldn't have pursued the same course.

                    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:09:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And yet it is the only document (0+ / 0-)

                      Being referred to as a legal justification of the presidential grab of assassination powers in the use of drones.
                      That is until the WH releases its memorandum to Congress on the legality of the president's actions in respect to our Constitution and the War Powers Act.

                      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:34:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  With an armed mass (0+ / 0-)

    of NRA nuts running around killing thousands every year, who the fk cares if a drone is buzzing around my head. Ban the guns first, then maybe this will make it to my worry list.

    GOP- Fact Free since 1981!

    by KingGeorgetheTurd on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:12:16 PM PDT

  •  We are breaking new territory for dkos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radmul, truong son traveler

    67% are now convinced that Drone Assassination is A-Ok.

    The trendline continues it's upward march into wingnut territory.

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:32:04 PM PDT

  •  Things come from unexpected sources. (0+ / 0-)

    Many moons ago I read in either Popular Mechanic's or a publication like it that in the future a guide wire could be implanted in highways which could allow a car to set its destination and be safely taken there with the car driving itself but guided by impulses from the guide wire.

    Now, many ,many years later we do have automobiles that drive themselves but no guidance system, that I am aware of, for them to get from point a to point b safely.

    Yes, GPS has potential toward that end but just maybe Drone technology might be what hastens the day for a truly relaxing car trip???

  •  Same as I felt yesterday, last year, etc. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aeolos

    I'm all for it.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:44:03 PM PDT

  •  63 to 33 so far (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall2

    Looks like pretty solid support for drones here, regardless of the one-sided diary.

    Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre.

    by Sky Net on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:27:38 PM PDT

  •  Circumstances matter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BradyB, Aeolos

    Are we talking about drones launched immediately after an actual attack on the US as an precision response that avoids bombing a larger population? Or, are we talking about using drones routinely to  punish individuals who fall into a constantly expanding category of "enemies" of the U.S.?

    I could support the first. The second is simply a program of political assassination as an alternative to sensible international and domestic policies.

    •  We are talking about Drone Assassination (0+ / 0-)

      Of suspected terrorists, ongoing and not theoretical (close to 4,000 killed so far with untold thousands of casualties with 10% being civilian) in the GWOT.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:57:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Drone" is a magic word. (0+ / 0-)

    The word has an aura: military, stealthy, eerie, remotely controlled, indiscriminate.

    We suspend judgment when the word is used, and retreat to all sorts of fantastical notions, many of which found their way into the almost 13-hour faux-lucid diatribe of Rand Paul (R-KY) on the Senate floor. Otherwise sensible people - like E.J. Dionne on Rachel - solemnly declared that at least, "We were having a conversation about it." Really?

    What else could make civil libertarians sound like members of Idaho militias?

    Let's face it. It is highly unlikely that a weaponized military drone of the kind we see on TV would ever be used within the US. Is it so absolutely impossible that a responsible Attorney General is willing to opine that the President has no such authority under any circumstances that could be conceived of? No, such a challenge is the typical law school hypothetical that reaches for the ultimate extreme in order to induce reasoned thinking and analysis. Nothing like that has taken place in the halls of Congress on the issue of drones.

    In virtually every case within US borders with US citizens, existing law enforcement and its tools are adequate to the situation. Should remote controlled devices of whatever size and delivery capability be flatly barred from use because they fit someone's idea of a "drone?" Possibly, we do not have all the right tools to combat the one-person/small group terrorism that could be inflicted within a country that believes in a free and open society.  That is the kind of discussion, for example, that we should have had about the Patriot Acts but reason was clouded by politics on both sides of the aisle ... and on that subject, still is!

    Public opinion polls asking simple questions, just like US Senators inveighing about drones disrupting "your cafe experience," aren't any kind of meaningful conversation.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 08:37:10 PM PDT

  •  It's despicable and immoral to use drones! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, Aeolos

    If there are "bad guys" we want to get then ship some of our young, healthy lads over to the "bad guy" locale, and have them hunt them down and take them out.

    It's way TOO easy to kill with drones. When we have to send our own dear boys and girls over there in harms way to flush-out the prey, it will make our dear leaders think twice (or not) before taking action.

    Too many innocents are killed in drone strikes. It makes other countries and peoples hate us, and rightfully so.

    ALL DRONES SHOULD BE OUTLAWED FOR USEAGE. PERIOD.

    I'm sick of war.  I'm sick of Dems who support war, drones, destruction of our civil liberties, and other heinous actions just because we have a Dem President in office. Absolutely no integrity whatsoever.

    Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

    by Lucy2009 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:23:29 PM PDT

  •  Tough question to answer because it's easy to (0+ / 0-)

    Move the  goal posts  and get different responses.  In the context of fighting militant Islamic fundamentalists and other enemies of the US which have declared their hostility to the US and actively plot to attack US targets, like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri or even the fictional Abu Nasir from Homeland, I support drone attacks.  It is preferable to sending thousands of US troops into foreign lands and dealing with the human, financial and geopolitical costs involved.  

    But what I want is transparency regarding the circumstances of such attacks.  For example, what is the collateral damage resulting from such attacks? How accurate are they in reality?  Is the level of blowback so high as to render them politically counterproductive and ineffective in all but the most clear cut examples.  We need data to develop a standard of use much like we do for hostage rescue missions.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:39:18 PM PDT

    •  You answered it. The rest of your post (0+ / 0-)

      Is irrelevant to the question. I didn't ask if you agreed with the execution of terrorists. I asked if you agreed with the assassination of suspected terrorists. A legal question not a military tactical exercise.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 10:53:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you are in doubt about how you feel about (0+ / 0-)

    drones, and killing suspected terrorists, the "collateral damage" aka killing of innocents that always ensues, etc, etc......

    Here is a really easy formula to help you regain your moral compass, and personal integrity. If you would be fine with Bush, or Romney, or Rand Paul using drones under those circumstances, then you probably really think they are OK. If it would not have been, or will not be OK under a GOP President, then you don't like it and think it's immoral under Obama.

    Easy.

    Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

    by Lucy2009 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 11:24:43 PM PDT

    •  Too easy for most here. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lucy2009

      They like the warm cozy partisan blanky of situational ethics and it smells of teen spirit.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure, but I think I would (0+ / 0-)

      have the same ambivalence under a different administration. To be honest though, I'm not sure. Hypotheticals don't necessarily make an issue more clear or easy.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:49:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand that things are not always black and (0+ / 0-)

        white. However, I find it to be a pretty straightforward proposition.

        E.g., I hated it when Bush talked about privatizing or futzing around with SS, and I hate it when Obama does this. Chained CPI is immoral, and I won't for another Dem until that is repealed should Obama get the chance to institute this damaging proposal.

        I hated warrantless wiretapping under Bush, and I hate it under Obama.  It's a grotesque violation of our civil liberties no matter the Party in charge.

        Kissing Wall Streets ass under Bush was just as heinous under Bush as it is under Obama. They are/were both bought/sold by big money. No integrity when it comes to this issue. Disgusting human beings that bring pain, agony, and loss of financial stability and hope to 100's of millions of Americans. All so they can maintain their power. I never would have voted for Obama in 2012 if there had been a better option.

        So, I really don't find it's that much of a issue for me. I either like a policy or I don't. I don't give a shit who is in office. They are either assholes, or they aren't. But that's just me.

        Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

        by Lucy2009 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 09:24:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well the Drones have it by 90 votes to 65 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sky Net

    58% is the new high water mark for Drone Assassination on Daily Kos.
    Thank you all for sharing some very alarming notions on the constitution and the basic rights of all citizens from a nominally progressive blog.

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:51:41 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site